I just installed Midori 0.1.0 and Dillo 2.0 - I will be testing them between now and the first of the year.

Initial thoughts:

Dillo loads blazingly fast - within the blink of an eye. Midori takes longer to load - about half a second. Firefox takes anywhere from 1-4 seconds to load (longer on loading the first time after bootup) - just for comparison.

Dillo still has no support for JavaScript or HTTPS - big drawbacks for usage. It also doesn't render some pages correctly (i.e., FreeBSD and NetBSD homepages) - I think CSS still isn't fully implemented - and many others are rendered sub-optimally (i.e., Google). Images don't always display (even when IMG ON is selected).

Midori renders pages nicely - it appears to support both JavaScript and HTTPS. Images appear as they should. One bad thing about Midori's UI - no HOME button.

Midori is half the size of Dillo (~260K vs. ~540K) - but Midori relies on libraries that take up more space (at least on Slackware, where I'm testing them). I will be interested in comparing memory usage between the two.

__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)

I just installed Midori 0.1.0 and Dillo 2.0 - I will be testing them between now and the first of the year.

Initial thoughts:

Dillo loads blazingly fast - within the blink of an eye. Midori takes longer to load - about half a second. Firefox takes anywhere from 1-4 seconds to load (longer on loading the first time after bootup) - just for comparison.

Dillo still has no support for JavaScript or HTTPS - big drawbacks for usage. It also doesn't render some pages correctly (i.e., FreeBSD and NetBSD homepages) - I think CSS still isn't fully implemented - and many others are rendered sub-optimally (i.e., Google). Images don't always display (even when IMG ON is selected).

Midori renders pages nicely - it appears to support both JavaScript and HTTPS. Images appear as they should. One bad thing about Midori's UI - no HOME button.

Midori is half the size of Dillo (~260K vs. ~540K) - but Midori relies on libraries that take up more space (at least on Slackware, where I'm testing them). I will be interested in comparing memory usage between the two.

Midori is not the half size of Dillo Midori with all its dependencies
is over 150Mb. Dillo with FTLK2 is much, much smaller but more than 500Kb.

You correctly observed that Midori is full blown browser based on WebKit
engine with full implementation of OpenSSL (https) as well as Java Script engine. Cavities of Midori are few but the major one is that it is alha software. Did you look the comment about problems in starting OpenSSL?
Also Gtk2 graphics library used for its GUI has bugs. Even Firefox 3.0 has serious problems caused by Gtk2.
WebKit is still under development but very promising web-engine.

Dillo2 based on FTLK2 is HTML browser (no CSS implementation at all) but some implementation for boxes.
Dillo2 has only rudimentary support for OpenSSL which is turned off by
default. It has no Java Script engine. In plain English it is not really usable for anything. Dillo2 is most promising and revolutionary browser for Unix like systems but based on past record of long periods of inactivity I am not
big optimist that will get anywhere.

Midori on the another hand is probably couple months of being another major browser on the market. WebKit is the default web-engine for Safari which is probably the most solid WebBrowser ( I like Opera too but Presto engine is a black box so it might be can of worms for all I know).

Midori is half the size of Dillo (~260K vs. ~540K) - but Midori relies on libraries that take up more space (at least on Slackware, where I'm testing them). I will be interested in comparing memory usage between the two.

That's an unfair comparison.. as Oko has mentioned, Midori uses Webkit for rendering.

btw, Webkit is far more than just a "very promising web-engine". It's probably the most advanced engine on the planet right now with neck-to-neck pacing with Opera for the lead. It has bleeding edge standards compliance and leads the way in new advancements. It's used by Safari and Chrome. Using Webkit is a very good thing.

Midori is not the half size of Dillo Midori with all its dependencies
is over 150Mb. Dillo with FTLK2 is much, much smaller but more than 500Kb.

I only provided their executable sizes. I did state that Midori had heavier dependency requirements.

I really wish that Dillo would provide JavaScript/SSL/CSS to make it more usable. One thing I need such a capable browser for is signing into my Universities wireless network - which requires a login (Cisco something) to access the internet (as opposed to their intranet). After that, I can go back to any browser or other internet program for use.

__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)

dillo now has tabs. (version 0.- now /dillo2/ ) One news site
works rather well with it. (If you right click, you can open a
tab in the background. Seamonkey, however, opens it in
the foreground. I prefer the former)

With Firefox and Chrome coming out with javascript engines up to 40x faster, and other web methods relying heavily on javascript, not having js support could be a serious blow for those browsers. A lot of functionality is being transfered to the browser and I'm seeing more of that talked about in the web dev world right now.

It's not perfect by a long shot. Rudimentary may be an apt term to describe it. And it doesn't seem to play nice when coupled with mysql or php. But still, what support there is does what I currently absolutely need it to do.

__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)